Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for single-stair multifamily

thesisdriven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#141

Post by Aunche »

oh_sigh wrote: post #119
ok_dad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic example is the lot that sits empty or has a parking structure on it in Manhattan. Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to bu…

That's a classic example used by proponents of LVT. But what is another example? Terry buys a house in a run down, blighted, poor/cheap neighborhood, and along with other neighbors, starts to revitalize it. 15 years later, the formerly blighted neighborhood has become hip, due to the work and care Terry and others put in to it. Property prices increase as rich people want to move to the cool neighborhood, and now Ter…

First of all, LVT are designed to be replacement for property taxes, which already have the problem you describe.

Also, Terry isn't forced to sell to a rich person. He is a rich person. The type of people who like to live in hip neighborhoods tends to be recent graduates starting their high paying career. While they may have more income than Terry, Terry is significantly wealthier than most of them. If he really wants to stay on there, he can easily pay off any property/land taxes with the equity of his home.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#142

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kilotaras wrote: post #47
bequanna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

Someone buys a property: +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ | Type | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value | +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ | Parking Lot | 100 | 0 | 100 | | Dump | 100 | -20 | 80 | | Skyscrapper | 100 | 100 | 200 | +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ Land increases in price and buyer sells it: +-------------+------------+----------…

When money is growing on trees, pick it.

If you have an undeveloped piece of land worth X, and it becomes worth Y if you put a skyscraper on it, then you do it as long as the cost of construction is less than Y-X.

Sure, you can make money by doing nothing, if the price of land is going up. But you can make that money plus the money you make by building the skyscraper by, you know, building the skyscraper.

If you're not willing to do that because of the increased taxes on the skyscraper, then either you're refusing dollars to avoid spending a dime, or the tax regime in your city is really out of control.

So I'm not buying your argument here at all. Developers develop because they make money doing it. The absence of a land-value tax isn't what stops them.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#143

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ok_dad wrote: post #68
toast0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to build something there instead of nothing, since you’re paying the same tax as the sky scraper…

I don’t know why they name stuff what they do, but it’s dumb to simply read the name of something and then make assumptions based on no further information about that thing. Maybe you should have read the Wikipedia about it before assuming stuff?

Not everybody does a half-hour of research before every HN comment. Nor should they be expected to.

LVT was named (I presume) by the advocates of it. If their name is misleading, don't blame the people reading it who are getting confused.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#144

Post by macNchz »

nicole_express wrote: post #21

I'd like to see more discussion of the safety impact; I know the article makes the point that fire deaths per capita are lower in Europe, which lacks the requirement, but it also notes that US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective) Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Gr…

The new construction single-staircase building in NYC that I used to live in was metal and concrete framed, fitted with sprinklers throughout, and had double fire doors separating each apartment from the (all tile/metal/concrete) staircase with little vestibules. It didn’t give me pause in the slightest, really I felt like it was safer from a fire perspective than a typical wood frame single family home, or an older building with a rickety old fire escape.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#145

Post by bumbledraven »

InCityDreams wrote: post #137
logifail wrote: post #71

Mostly OT, but related to emergency staircases. We visited Glasgow (Scotland) last summer and the hotel fire alarm went off the middle of the night (for whatever reason we seem to attract fire alarms while on family holidays) After getting the kids dressed(ish) we exited the rooms, totally missing that there was one emergency staircase immediately opposite. There was a sign at ceiling height, at 90 degrees to us, whi…

>(for whatever reason we seem to attract fire alarms while on family holidays) Took a while to learn to "check your exit routes", then? Or, ignoring any snark, you've learned a lot since "Glasgow (Scotland) last [S]ummer"?

>Took a while to learn to "check your exit routes", then? Or, ignoring any snark, you've learned a lot since "Glasgow (Scotland) last [S]ummer"?

Presumably the family had always found the exit routes easy to locate until the incident in Glasgow. So yes, that would be when they learned the lesson.

Nit: according to https://www.grammarly.com/blog/are-seasons-capitalized/, "The seasons—winter, spring, summer and fall—do not require capitalization."

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#146

Post by drcongo »

baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

I'm baffled at the phrase "single stair" when what they actually mean is "single staircase". I had to read most of that article to work out what it actually meant, while at the same time imagining buildings with only one stair.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#147

Post by COM9 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #119
ok_dad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic example is the lot that sits empty or has a parking structure on it in Manhattan. Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to bu…

That's a classic example used by proponents of LVT. But what is another example? Terry buys a house in a run down, blighted, poor/cheap neighborhood, and along with other neighbors, starts to revitalize it. 15 years later, the formerly blighted neighborhood has become hip, due to the work and care Terry and others put in to it. Property prices increase as rich people want to move to the cool neighborhood, and now Ter…

1. That still happens with the classic property tax, but 2. at least there's more housing supply / less empty lots with LVT.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#148

Post by RandomLensman »

Aunche wrote: post #124
RandomLensman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the most valuable use is luxury apartments and stores that would be what everything needs to converge to? Feels like a tax always looking towards the most valuable use could actually be very regressive and push anything but the richest out of economically attractive cities. Maybe I am missing something?

Luxury apartments will depreciate into regular apartments over time. Allowing demand for luxury apartments to be pent up just means that rich people will capture more regular apartments instead.

Why would that happen? Demand will be satisfied as that would be the most high value thing to do, driving the land tax wherever the process starts.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#149

Post by drcongo »

crazygringo wrote: post #136
chris-orgmenta wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law. OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data. It's like if the build…

No, that's entirely Europe. The outcome of the legislation was easy for anyone to see. As you say, it was blinkered and short-sighted. And I still have to click 20 popups away on mobile every day. If only a few websites had the banner, then maybe I'd blame those websites. But when they virtually all do, I blame the law.

Just out of interest, you prefer to have your data harvested and sold?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#150

Post by kccqzy »

slyall wrote: post #131
nicole_express wrote: post #21

I'd like to see more discussion of the safety impact; I know the article makes the point that fire deaths per capita are lower in Europe, which lacks the requirement, but it also notes that US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective) Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Gr…

Unfortunately people from the US (including those who have never lived in an apartment or thought about fire regulations before) instinctively get really worried about this whole idea and assume people are just going to get killed. Happens in this thread and whenever it is brought up in social media. The original article talks about statistics, various extra measures to ensure safety and limiting to buildings 6 store…

I totally agree with you that it's definitely instinctive. The article has a link to mass timber construction for fire officials. Coincidentally there is an office building near me with mass timber structure but whenever I tell people about it, they instinctively think of it as less safe than steel and concrete.
Post reply on HN